BIKASH TALUKDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against the order dated 2nd April, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the learned single Judge has upheld the objection of the respondents that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the West Bengal State Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society Ltd. is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Co-operative Society is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution so as to maintain the writ petition. Hence, aggrieved against the aforesaid order the present appeal.

(2.) For convenient disposal of this appeal, brief facts may be narrated. The petitioner was an employee of the West Bengal State Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society Ltd. The petitioner challenged the order dated 1.11.1986 whereby he was dismissed from the service. The aforesaid order was passed after holding the regular inquiry. The challenge of the petitioner was that the order of dismissal was arbitrary and illegal and without holding any inquiry and without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. An objection was raised before the learned single Judge by the respondents that since the petitioner was an employee of the Co-operative Society and the society is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable. The learned single Judge relying on a decision of this Court (Altamas Kabir, J.) in C.O. No. 11357 (W) of 1996 and W.P. 21846 (W) of 1997 (Dipak Kumar Roy v. The West Bengal State Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors. with Smt. Papia Pal v. The West Bengal State Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors.) against this very Society upheld the objection that the present Co-operative Society is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, therefore the writ petition is not maintainable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that this Society has a large share held by the Government and the Government has all pervasive control in the management of the Society. Therefore it is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and in support of that learned counsel has relied on various decisions of the Apex Court, i.e. Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. (AIR 1981 SC 487), Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami & Ors. v. V.R. Rudani & Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 1607), Indra Kumar Chopra v. Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. & Ors. (AIR SC 2093), N.S. Giri v. The Corporation of City Mangalore & Ors. [(1999 2 SLR 630], Ram Sahan Rai v. Sachiv Samanaya Prabandhak & Anr. [2001 3 SCC 323], and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology [2002 5 SCC 111]. Before we proceed to deal with the aforesaid cases, we may refer to the necessary Bye-Laws of the Society.